Coal Action Network Aotearoa (CANA), the national organisation campaigning for an end to coal mining and coal use, says Resources Minister Shane Jones needs to understand the world has moved on from the industrial revolution, and coal – and siding with the dinosaurs won’t do his grandchildren any favours.

“While Fonterra’s getting out of coal as fast as possible because its international customers are demanding it, Caveman Shane wants to take us back to the dark ages,” said CANA spokesperson Jenny Campbell.

Te Kuha mine, turned down by the Environment Court but said to be a top pick for the government’s fast-track process. Photo: Neil Silverwood

“Relaxing rules for new coal mines in the face of increasing climate impacts is unlikely  to be something New Zealanders will throw their weight behind. People across the country are still recovering from flood disasters: some from more than a year ago, and some just last week; farmers are suffering from a crippling drought and crying out for rain.

“This Minister, who doesn’t care about killing kiwi and never met a mine he didn’t like, clearly got his riding instructions in his four-hour meeting with mining lobbyists in January. The world has moved on from the 1800’s, here’s a climate crisis to tackle, and he needs to catch up.

“Between this and the fast-track Bill, this Government is showing it’s fast becoming an environmental vandal and climate criminal.”

“The International Energy Agency has been very clear: we don’t need any new coal mines.  And there is no such thing as good coal – whether it comes from Rotowaro or Indonesia, this stuff is a climate killer – and it also kills kids and vulnerable older people through its pollutants.”

CANA questioned who the Minister thought were the customers for all these new coal mines he wants to open.

“Is the Government planning to reverse the planned phaseout of low and medium heat coal boilers by 2037? That would further ruin the environmental reputation of New Zealand businesses in our key overseas markets,” she asked?

“Shane Jones may only care about doing the bidding of the lobbyists and donors whose interests he serves,” concluded Jenny Campbell

“But our children and our country deserve better. They deserve better than a Minister who specialises in aggressive ignorance. They deserve better than a Government that is selling our country off to the miners, the drillers and the despoilers. They deserve better than Shane Jones, and they deserve better than a climate change-fuelled future tied to fossil fuels and failure.”

The post Shane Jones throws a lump of coal to the mining lobbyists appeared first on Coal Action Network Aotearoa.

Coal Action Network Aotearoa (CANA) today heralded the Government’s decision to help New ZealandSteel cut its coal use by 45% as a huge step in decarbonising the economy and ending coal use in New Zealand.

“This is fantastic news, and the kind of step we need our government to be taking: it’s great news for the climate,” said Tim Jones of CANA.

“The Glenbrook Steel mill burns around 800,000 tonnes of coal each year, so cutting that by 45% is massive. Now we need to see the rest of the mill decarbonise.”

NZ Steel burns 800,000 tonnes of coal a year (Photo: wikicommons) 

CANA has long advocated for NZ Steel to start recycling scrap steel, but the company had previously argued it wasn’t ready to do this. 

“In the face of a decarbonising world, we’re seeing technologies like electric arc furnaces become mainstream, and getting this up and running in Aotearoa is a no brainer,” he said.

“New Zealand Steel has received more free allocations of emission reduction units under the Emissions Trading Scheme than any other industry, to the tune of millions. This is a far better use of taxpayers money than throwing big overseas-owned industries like NZ Steel money to pollute,” he said.

However, he noted that given the government’s statement today that the abatement cost for NZ Steel would be $16.50 a tonne, compared with the carbon price of $55 a tonne, then why not stop giving big emitters free allocation? 

“This announcement shows how absurd and damaging it is that we continue to pay big industries to pollute by giving them free allocations of carbon credits. If we ended those free allocations, more industries would be incentivised to decarbonise and the taxpayer wouldn’t have to subsidise them to do it.”

The post Government decision to convert steel mill to burn less coal a fantastic move appeared first on Coal Action Network Aotearoa.

The night Cyclone Gabrielle hit my coastal village of Piha was, frankly, terrifying, as it was for so many around the motu.  I measured more than 400mm in my back yard – my neighbours up the road had 457mm. That’s nearly half a metre of rain. In just 12 hours.

The house on a Piha hill that broke in half in a slip

High above us on the hill, a neighbour’s house broke in half: the elderly occupants got out with literally 30 seconds to spare.  The family living directly under them down the hill quickly evacuated to mine at 12.45 am, all soaking wet from the deluge of water pouring off the hill and down our road.

Friends in North Piha had a slip come right through their house: red stickered. They don’t know what they’re going to do. This was their retirement, their dream, and it’s just been shattered.  Another whole road has slumped and the whole street is cut off,  as is the road at the top of the hill that provides access to the school that most of our primary school aged kids go to. The pre-school got flooded so isn’t operational.

The beginning of my little dead end road was completely flooded, submerging two houses. One family got out, leaving two dogs behind; the other didn’t, and spent the night in their house surrounded by water.  The new pond was finally pumped out on Sunday night, so finally we didn’t have to walk up the road and go down a goat track to get out – or to get things like generators in. [The dogs are both fine and reunited with their people].

This area had been submerged underwater up to the first floor of this Piha house

We had no power in our street for 11 days (don’t start me on Vector who didn’t even have our outage logged and was telling people who’d been out of power for nine days that their power was on).  It wasn’t easy.  But my house is fine. And we’re all alive. As are all our neighbours over in Karekare, many of whom are still cut off from the world.

A Coal Action Network colleague was one of those choppered out in the days after Gabrielle, as he lives well below all the slips. His house is fine but whether he’ll ever be able to drive there again is still in question. 

Our hearts go out to the communities in Muriwai and further south in Hawkes Bay and Tairawhiti. 

But trauma is exhausting, and real. I found myself close to tears at the smallest things, like not being able to start the generator in the morning.

What’s also lurking behind my tears is the fact that I’ve been working to stop climate change for 30 years and the same old arguments keep coming up: that it’s too expensive to act on. 

For years we’ve been pushing the government to do the work to understand the costs of climate impacts, to weigh them up against the costs of action, of cutting emissions and moving to a low-carbon economy.  Because if the only numbers you have are the costs of action, it bolsters all those who object to taking the strong action we need.  The Climate Change Commission didn’t have the numbers either. The work on the cost of climate impacts just hasn’t been done.  Perhaps we should start with the bill from Gabrielle.

And now we’re hearing a new kind of climate denial – most ridiculous claims from people like Chris Trotter, and Matthew Hooton, arguing that it’s now too late to act on climate change, now we just have to get on with adapting to it. Act’s Brooke Van Velden joined the fray on TVNZ Breakfast.

Hooton has spent decades trying to (incorrectly) spin New Zealand’s lack of real climate action in favour of planting pine trees as somehow being world-leading. It isn’t and has never been the case.  

The question they haven’t looked at is how much you can adapt to: and when it simply becomes what the UNFCCC views as “loss and damage.” Loss of land, of people, of coastlines, and community. This has been the developing world’s big fight: given the developed world’s lack of action on climate change, those governments need to start paying for the resulting damage, damage that cannot be recovered from. But those Loss & Damage funds would not be available for Aotearoa: we’re part of the problem. 

We’re currently experiencing around 1.2˚C of warming above pre-industrial levels, when we started burning coal and other fossil fuels. Under current policy pathways, the policies governments have in place right now, the world is still heading to more than twice that: 2.7˚C of warming – or more. If governments manage to meet their Paris Agreement pledges, it’s still 2.4˚C. 

The reality of where we’re headed in terms of warming www.climateactiontracker.org

But if this is what we get at 1.2˚C what kind of fresh hell will 2.7˚C bring? 

It’s mind blowing. Cyclone Gabrielle has now been officially confirmed by NIWA as being the strongest cyclone to ever hit Aotearoa. Worse than Bola (1988) and worse than Giselle (1968). The lowest pressure, and the most rain – of course there was a lot more moisture in the air with Gabrielle, thanks to global warming, and Gabrielle picked up intensity as she crossed an ocean undergoing a marine heatwave – also from global warming.

And no, it wasn’t the Tongan eruption. While yes, the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai eruption did send unprecedented vapour into the stratosphere, scientists have calculated it may lead to around 0.1˚C of warming. The rest of the warming is down to us.

If Trotter, Hooton and Act honestly think we can safely adapt to that, they need their heads read. It’s extraordinary the lengths people will go to cling onto their lifestyles and oppose all emissions cuts. 

But we still have choices.

We don’t have to get to 2.7 degrees. We need to spend cash both on adaptation AND mitigation. Because the bill for adapting to 2.7˚C would be ridiculous. A low-carbon society IS possible, and as scientists repeatedly tell us, will actually be good for our economy.  It’s not an either or situation. It’s both. 

It’s going to be hard to get to the recommended, and agreed, warming limit of 1.5˚C. It’s going to cost a lot. But let’s be clear, the costs of adapting to a two or even three degree world will be astronomical. 

Lucy, a friend who has worked on climate change for 20 years, put this next bit so succinctly, I’ve asked her if I can use it in this blog. 

From Lucy

“When I was first working on climate change 20 years ago, the most common belief was it didn’t exist and hysterical environmentalists were over stating the risk.

Then 10 years ago, we acknowledged it did exist but NZ was too small and we couldn’t make a real difference to global emissions and it was hard so we should give up trying – be fast followers.

Then we segued into accepting it was a problem and that if all the small countries like us gave up then, actually, that would be a third of global emissions and so maybe we should do our fair share. Climate change was just one of many other issues that all had higher priority and we needed to balance with economic growth and keep the farmers happy etc.

We also had a fun argument about whether we should invest in community engagement/education and behaviour change OR systemic changes to taxes, infrastructure, economic levers, legislation etc.

We roundly discounted education without considering that a) maybe we need to do both as fast as we can and b) that maybe getting some public understanding of climate change and buy-in to the solutions is an essential prerequisite to making major systemic change.

Bill English on a tractor protesting Labour’s 2003 “fart tax” (c) Scoop media

Instead we just introduced some policies, fart taxes, cycleways, parking strategies etc, got a shock when the public didn’t like them and quickly repealed them.

We didn’t have the support for systemic change but we said ‘we can’t try and educate people about climate change because nanny state, shower gate’, we can tell people not to speed, but we can’t possibly waste money on telling them how we can prevent the single biggest threat to humanity and te taiao.

And now people are drowning in Hawkes Bay and we have segued perfectly to ‘It’s too late, adaptation is the priority, we just have to invest in our physical assets’.

But the tragedy is the climate doesn’t care about the stories we tell and 2.7 degrees of warming will far FAR exceed any physical adaptation we can build.”

The post The new climate denial: adaptation over mitigation appeared first on Coal Action Network Aotearoa.

One of the most interesting things in watching the Australian elections over the weekend was seeing the shock of ABC presenters when the results of its post-vote polling showed climate change was far and away the most important issue on voters’ minds – a massive 27% compared with the next most important: the economy, at 14%.

Why was this so shocking to the media, the political analysts?

It hasn’t stopped raining in Lismore for three months, during which time there have been two devastating floods: today, the town barely exists – it’s all been underwater, twice. There’ve been ongoing floods and storms – from North Queensland all the way down the east coast. Western Australia suffered record heatwaves and horrific bushfires last summer. The Great Barrier Reef is undergoing its sixth – and worst – bleaching event.

The terror of the 2019/20 firestorms that turned the sky orange, burning seven million hectares, are etched into people’s minds, and so is the response from Scott Morrison from his holiday Hawaii as Australia was burning: “I don’t hold a hose mate.” Equally, his slow response to call a major emergency after the Lismore flooding disaster (rightfully) enraged locals.

ScoMo’s response to climate-related disasters didn’t endear him to the Australian people.

As the election campaign rolled out, Scott Morrison didn’t want to talk about climate, because his position was pretty dodgy; Antony Albanese didn’t want to scare the mining communities he needed the votes from (which he didn’t get anyway), and the Canberra press gallery didn’t want to ask either leader about it – it wasn’t in their minds.

Climate specialist journalists were having the devil’s own job in trying to get analysis on climate change published by their editors.  There were pockets of it, but it simply wasn’t a gotcha front page issue. While the Guardian rolled out a number of good pieces, the vast majority of the media largely ignored this issue, entirely missing the story of what voters really cared about, despite polling telling them otherwise.

But in those communities on the ground, climate change was top of mind. As Greens leader Adam Bandt said on Saturday night, the feedback the Greens were getting in Brisbane was that people from all political persuasions were deeply concerned about climate change. They could see it happening in front of their very eyes,  and they wanted action.  And this was one key reason for the “Greenslide” that saw the Greens gain seats in both the House and the Senate.  And the teal independents win liberal seats.

The trauma of having your house (or that of your family or neighbours) underwater or burned to the ground, your wheat crop ravaged by a mouse plague, seeing your beloved forests – and the animals living in them – torched, your Great Barrier Reef bleached, is not easily dismissed. It lives with people for years.

Labor now looks set to gain a very slim majority, so in theory it won’t have to negotiate with the 16-seat crossbench to get its legislation across the line.  PM Albanese has already stated Labor’s 2030 climate target – a 43% reduction below 2005 levels – is not up for negotiation. The target has been arrived at through detailed modelling of all the party’s climate policies (something that would be good to see the National Party do here in Aotearoa – if it HAD a plan).

That crossbench has a strong climate focus: the Greens want to see a target of 74% by 2030 and the teal independents 60%, both 1.5˚C compatible, according to analysis from Climate Analytics – and Labor’s target is around 2˚C compatible.

The Greens look set to hold the balance of power in the Senate, so that will be one to watch. Will they insist on strong climate legislation, such as independent Zali Steggall’s draft Net Zero Bills (60% by 2030)?

While the fossil fuel industry’s firm grip on government has now been loosened and hopefully will be addressed (this article in Renew Economy spells out just how many fossil fuel industry stooges Morrison and his energy minister Angus Taylor planted in key positions), there’s still a way to go, and a lot of damage to undo. Labor will submit its new target to the UNFCCC, and is likely to re-enter the Global Climate Fund that the previous encumbents walked away from.

Labor still wedded to gas and coal 

But as this great piece in Carbon Brief points out, Labor has not backed off its support of both gas and coal:

“Australia is on track to continue producing fossil fuels in large volumes, with 69 new coal projects and 45 new LNG, gas and oil projects in the investment pipeline, as of October 2021.”

The emissions from those projects, combined, would add at least 8.3% to Australia’s emissions by 2030.

But Albo does not oppose big new gas projects like Woodside Energy’s Scarborough Pluto extension in Western Australia, set to add 1.37 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions to the atmosphere by 2055, and he hasn’t named a single coal-fired power station he’d close down early. He’s even said the country could still be burning coal in 2050, 20 years after the date Australia needs to get out of coal as its part in the global action required to keep warming to 1.5˚C.

Protesters challenge Woodside Energy’s Scarborough Gas project in Western Australia

The fossil fuel industry has been pouring money into the political parties, with Woodside giving the biggest donation – $108,350  – to Labor. The sector donated a total of $1.15m to political parties in the past year, similar to the $1.13m it donated the year before.  It would be good to hear Labor reject that funding.

Sure, Labor does have good, big plans for climate action, and there is certainly scope for its many policies listed in its “Powering Australia” plan to roll out in all the sectors neglected by the federal government: transport, industry, buildings, etc.  Labor had a plan, a plan that it had thoroughly modelled to get to its 2030 target number (something our National Party might want to consider if it wants to be taken seriously on climate change).

But if anyone expects a coal-fired power station to be closed down any time soon – or even a coal mine to be stopped, they will likely be disappointed. We will likely keep seeing coal from the Adani mine continuing to be exported to India. the fight against coal will – and must – go on. [Noting there has been a very long and effective fight against Australia’s coal development, and the Galillee basin in particular].

Perhaps the strong climate signal from the voters, combined with the crossbench in the House that is overwhelmingly in favour of it, will mean Labor will understand it has been given a strong mandate to do more to tackle the fossil fuel production problem – but my bet is that this won’t happen at least until after the next election.  The Climate Wars might be over, but they could come roaring back at any point.

We can only hope that this will bring more of the teal independents and Greens into the House in the next election.

The question that everyone here has been asking is whether the Australian election outcome will have an impact on New Zealand?  It’s probably unlikely we’ll have the same voter reaction based on climate concerns: we haven’t seen quite the devastation that Australians have experienced, even though pockets of the country have (think: Tairawhiti, Westport).

Although I hasten to add we ARE seeing impacts – such as the 40 dead kororā in Northland last weekend, likely because of warming seas.  Our glaciers are shrinking; we ARE seeing more terrible flooding events right around the country.  Recent sea level rise information has shocked the country.   While more of us need to be shouting about climate action as these events are taking place, we’re often told this is “not the time” when we try to.

Other non climate-related takeaways 

While COVID-19 WAS a factor in the Australian elections, I don’t think it was in quite the same way that a lot of the New Zealand media are claiming.  The vote wasn’t a message to an incumbent government from a population fed up with a strong covid response and worried about the rising cost of living. It was a population fed up with a right wing government that didn’t appear to care about its people.

The success of the Australian covid response was largely down to the State premiers, not the federal government. Every time ScoMo did something on covid he did it wrong – and late, he lied about it, tried to blame other people, and messed it up. The loss of liberal seats in both WA and Victoria were, to a large extent, driven by the sledging their premiers got by the Federal government in the face of their strong response. The people of WA didn’t like being called cave people.  Who does?

Aside from pushing back against ScoMo on covid and climate, the other factor was what we’re seeing a lot of here in Aotearoa, unfortunately: misogyny, and the misogyny of the Morrison government had to be seen to be believed. Australia’s women had had enough. They voted for independents – and those who won were almost all women.  This argument is best summed up in ABC’s Annabel Crabb’s fantastic article.

The post The Australian election: what does it mean for climate, coal and gas? appeared first on Coal Action Network Aotearoa.

This week the government gave the thumbs up for Fonterra to keep burning coal for another 15 years, and for NZ Steel to continue burning it past 2050.

Our biggest polluters are still calling the shots on coal.

Wait. Isn’t it the government’s job to set policy for industry to follow, not the other way around?
Yes. Yet this week, as it released the Emissions Reduction Plan (ERP), there was an opportunity for the government to take meaningful steps toward reducing our reliance on coal.  But it didn’t.

We want to give big ups to those ministry folk who put the 343 page document together. All those words sound encouraging, but they don’t distract us from the reality that our civilisation and all that we hold dear on this planet are at enormous risk from global heating and this document is the government’s first response.

Urgent transformative change is needed. We can’t find that in the ERP.

We can’t even find the word “cow”, not even once. Where is the plan to deal with Fonterra, our biggest polluter? Where is the plan to radically transform agriculture, the cause of half of our entire emissions? Too many cows in inappropriate places like the stony Canterbury Plains have decimated Canterbury’s braided rivers, poisoned the native freshwater creatures, polluted aquifers and put human health at risk.

All of that is absent.

Cut the number of cows and you’ve gone a long way to solving the coal problem too, since 95% of the milk produced in NZ is dried, largely with coal, and exported, mainly by Fonterra. Then Bathurst can get on with moving their workers to meaningful jobs to build, not destroy, a low carbon economy.

But no, Bathurst is planning a new coal mine down south and their biggest customer Fonterra is ready-and-waiting. So much for letting the industry voluntarily phase out of coal. Strong government direction is needed – and that’s missing in the ERP.

Bathurst Resources Ltd (BRL) doesn’t have much of a track record. John Key was present to open its office in Wellington in 2012 – along with hundreds of protestors against its plans to mine the Denniston Plateau. But it’s not even a New Zealand company, after delisting from the NZ stock exchange three years after opening here, supposedly due to the dismally low share price.

Bathurst had to apply to the Overseas Investment Office to expand its Canterbury Coal Mine. The OIO gave it that green light, despite the fact it had breached a raft of consents by already expanding into unconsented territory. That closed last year after a dispute with ECAN over the consents that would have seen protracted legal processes Bathurst clearly couldn’t afford.

An Extinction Rebellion blockade highlighted that it had extracted five times more coal than its consent allowed.

Don’t expect this company to do the right thing for the planet.

As for the farmers, they’re on the front line, acutely affected by the changing climate. Farmers in the Waikato have been suffering from a severe drought – a longer drought than normal, they say. Normally the rain has come in by now, but not this year, one of the hottest and driest summers on record, caused at least in part by climate change.

Those farmers are now getting a handout from the government to support them through this difficult period. Support is needed – most importantly to transition away from the carbon-intensive system that is making the tough times more frequent.

The last thing farmers need is their industry’s refusal to change. But thanks to massive lobbying from the agriculture sector farmers are still excluded from the Emissions Trading Scheme and so have not paid a cent towards the ERP.  No Matter! On the very day the government lets them off the hook for paying the cost of their pollution, it was announced the taxpayer would be footing the bill to help them deal with the impact of climate change. You can’t make this stuff up.

NZ Steel

In another nod to industry the ERP allows NZ Steel to keep burning coal up to 2050 – this despite the push elsewhere towards low carbon steel manufacture and NZ Steel referring to steel-without-coal a “holy grail still at least a decade away”. One decade = 2032, not 2050.

Here are three points about steel:

1. You can make steel without coal, you just need the political will. Sweden’s Hybrit, with help from the EU Innovation Fund, will have commercially available coal-free steel by 2026. Sweden’s high percentage of hydroelectricity makes it a sitter for this kind of innovation – sound familiar? Even NZ Steel’s parent company Bluescope is working on low carbon steel manufacture in Port Kembla, Australia. It’s high time coal industry lobbyists stop denying the obvious (no, the world does not need your West Coast coking coal!) and get on with helping coal workers into much needed jobs to help secure all our futures.
2. The cool thing about steel is its 100% recyclability. We do OK in Aotearoa, recycling around 80% of our steel even though it has to be shipped overseas, but there is so much more that we can do in the recycling department. However, as with so many other manufacturing industries here, government must learn from the industry experts in order to make useful policy choices. For example, due to all sorts of technical reasons including the unique way NZ steel is made using thermal rather than coking coal, it currently makes sense to recycle But with low emissions inserted into company’s bottom line in place of profit we have a new, exciting story to tell. Yes please!
3. Stop using so much steel in construction. It’s been called “the concrete of the future” – Cross laminated Timber (CLT), developed at Canterbury University, is cost competitive to concrete and steel in low rise buildings (up to six stories) . One cubic meter of CLT can absorb one tonne of CO2. What’s stopping us?

Genesis Energy

Genesis is our other biggest coal user. It’s embarrassing that Genesis Energy still uses coal. CANA shamed them into stopping importing Indonesian coal 2014 when coal workers were being laid off down the road at Rotowaro.  Yet today Genesis, a 51% government owned company, is importing record amounts of coal.

We won’t go into the tangled mess behind what is now an electricity system that makes enormous profit off the backs of our forefathers’ publicly built electricity network. But Huntly coal has to go. My friend, currently working on huge wind and solar projects in Australia said our electricity system would be so easy to fix – he means make entirely renewable. In his view we don’t need Lake Onslow. Replace Huntly coal with planned, managed, distributed electricity. However, it looks as though the neoliberal capitalist model is sacrosanct. The market rules. But if we’re serious about the climate emergency a coherent public electricity utility has to be our priority.

Summing Up

A 2037 date to end coal in NZ is not fast enough. It ensures our biggest polluters get to continue dumping millions more tonnes of coal into a choking atmosphere than their fair share. CANA’s proposed date of 2027 to end coal use, instead of the government’s 2037, gives industry plenty of time to ensure that all workers involved in the mining and transport of coal get the training and support to transition into jobs needed for adapting to a climate changed economy – and there are plenty.

CANA’s 2014-15 report Jobs After Coal notes that Coal miners’ transferable skills are essential for helping build the economy we desperately need if we are to survive – like fixing our low lying railway network, building flood defences where possible in our low lying coastal cities, reorganising the way we grow food and so many other areas.

We would love to bring you good news folks! Well, climate change bumped Ukraine off top place in the news last week.

TBH, while the government gives the thumbs up to Fonterra in the ERP we have to give the ERP a great big thumbs down.

Our thumbs up goes to the climate activists who shut down Bathurst’s Takitimu coal mine recently, injecting colour and creativity into the heart of Mordor for an entire day.

Cheers!

Rosemary and the CANA team

The post Our biggest polluters are still calling the shots on coal appeared first on Coal Action Network Aotearoa.

PRESS RELEASE

“We’re disappointed and frustrated at the lack of urgency in the Government’s Emissions Reduction Plan discussion document,” said Tim Jones of Coal Action Network Aotearoa, the national group campaigning for an end to coal mining and use in Aotearoa.

“In fact, this isn’t even a plan – it’s a grab-bag of generally underwhelming proposals submitted by Ministers and Ministries. None reflect the urgency of the climate crisis, especially given the government has declared a Climate Emergency.”

“Agriculture, which represents almost 50% of New Zealand’s emissions, is dealt with in just four pages – that tells you all you need to know about the Government’s lack of climate ambition, and the Minister of Agriculture’s refusal to cooperate with the Government’s emissions reduction goals.”

“Coal is the highest-emitting fossil fuel, yet this draft document would let coal mining and burning continue for decades,” Tim Jones said.

“The Government is still giving big industrial emitters massive subsidies, in the form of free industrial allocations of carbon credits under the Emissions Trading Scheme, paid for by taxpayers, to keep burning coal and other fossil fuels: there’s no commitment to phase out those subsidies.

“The Government is also continuing to let Fonterra set the timetable for phasing out industrial coal boilers, instead of telling Fonterra to shape up. Letting big emitters continue to burn coal as long as they want isn’t a plan – it’s a failure of policy and a failure of nerve.”

“Aotearoa needs and deserves vision and leadership on climate action and climate justice,” Tim Jones said. “We need a real plan of action, with a strategy, milestones, and measurable deliverables.”

“The Prime Minister has spoken frequently about her commitment to strong action on climate change. This draft document shows that all too many of her Ministers don’t share that commitment.

It’s up to the community to step into the breach during the submission period and make it impossible for the Government to ignore the clamour for real, meaningful, measurable emissions reductions – and it’s up to the Prime Minister to get her Ministers on board and in line.

Let’s turn this into a real plan to reduce emissions and respond to the climate emergency.”

The post Coal Action Network On Government Emissions Reduction Plan: Where’s The Plan? appeared first on Coal Action Network Aotearoa.

Coal Action Network Aotearoa sharply criticised the Climate Change Commission’s decision to double projected coal use in 2050 in its final advice to the Government, released today.

“The Climate Change Commission’s final advice to the Government is full of brave words about the need to phase out coal,” said Coal Action Network Aotearoa spokesperson Tim Jones. “But brave words mean nothing without the determination to act – and since its draft report, it looks like the Commission’s nerve has failed.”

“In the draft advice, the Commission showed coal use continuing at 10 PJ/yr right up to 2050. Continuing to use coal, the world’s most dangerous fossil fuel, up to 2050 is utterly irresponsible in a climate emergency. CANA wants coal phased out by 2027.”

“But the final advice is even worse. It appears NZ Steel have got in the Commission’s ear and persuaded the Commission that their antiquated, polluting technology should be allowed to continue at even higher levels past 2050 – in fact, at twice the level in the draft advice.”

“This is terrible advice,” Tim Jones said. “Alternatives to using coal to make steel exist, and will be available well before 2050. This backsliding by the Commission shows that we need as a country to have a real debate about alternatives for coal for high-temperature industrial processes, instead of allowing vested interests like NZ Steel to sweet-talk the Commission into allowing coal a future that is bad for Aotearoa and bad for the planet.”

The post Climate Change Commission slammed for doubling coal use in 2050 in final advice appeared first on Coal Action Network Aotearoa.

The Government’s latest efforts to tackle emissions from coal are not the kind of bold action required to get New Zealand onto a net zero emissions pathway, and disappointingly leaves the door open for gas, says Coal Action Network Aotearoa.

While the group welcomed today’s announcement of a ban on new coal boilers from the end of this year, allowing bigger users to carry on using coal as process heat for another 16 years (to 2037) is way too late.

“The second round of grants announced to reduce coal use, while welcome, would save around 150,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, but Fonterra pumps out half a million tonnes every year to make its coal-fired milk powder exports,” said Cindy Baxter a CANA spokesperson.

CANA is particularly concerned about language in the Government’s announcement that still leaves the door wide open to gas, where it says “An option proposed is to also prohibit other new fossil fuel boilers where suitable alternative technology exists and it is economically viable.”

“Fonterra has already stated in its submission to the Climate Change Commission that it wants to maintain its use of gas while it phases out coal, but gas is also a problem: from production to burning, gas leaks, and if you count those fugitive emissions, there’s little difference from coal.”

CANA calls on the government to impose an immediate ban on new coal-fired boilers, rather than waiting until the end of the year, and to bring forward the date of coal phase-out to 2027.

CORRECTION: This press release has been amended. 

Fonterra got in touch with us to say that it will not be building any new gas boilers:  its submission to the Climate Change Commission stressed that it wanted to keep using the gas that it already burns while it makes the switch from coal.

The post Govt coal boiler ban welcome, but leaves door open for gas, favours Fonterra appeared first on Coal Action Network Aotearoa.

All that summer we sailed the drowned isthmus,
Miramar Island bulking east. Diving
was an anxious wait for murk-filled water

to yield its occasional treasures, relics of better days
left behind as the frantic dikes were overwhelmed.
Out by the drowned airport runway,

the never-finished extension lost beneath us, we faced
long rollers carrying Antarctic meltwater northward,
braved the sudden southern chop and squall

to plumb abandoned warehouses, corroding cars.
So many days we returned empty-handed
to the boatshed on the Wadestown shore,

worked the elaborate locks with reddened fingers,
climbed the hill to short commons and mixed
parental signals of frustration and concern.

It was a life lived in increments of bad news, a
Government of bluster and paralysis, its authority
manifested in chain-link fences and pronouncements

no longer listened to on matters that concerned
only those sited most securely inland. At the water’s edge
the social contract washed away, replaced

by alliances more fickle than the weather.
And the sea still rose, icecaps converted to ocean
by generations of accumulated arrogance.

That was all before our time. What we knew
was the rising wind, swoop of storm,
slack and snap of sails, one of us waiting aboard,

the other diving the ruins of lives lived
in those final glittering years of denial
before the ocean washed all doubts away.

– Tim Jones

INTRODUCTION

He waka eke noa – We are all in this together.

The New Zealand Government has declared a Climate Emergency. The seriousness and ambition of the Climate Change Commission’s advice to the Government should reflect that – now is not the time for half-measures. Yet the draft targets and timelines are patently inadequate in the face of the ever-growing climate catastrophe.

To meet the challenge of climate change, it is essential that Aotearoa plays its part, both domestically and internationally, and serves as an example to other nations. Our team of five million responded well, acting communally, on scientific advice, to keep ourselves safe from COVID-19. Now we need to do it again, to help save the world from an even greater threat.

The majority of people in Aotearoa realise the urgency of climate action and want the Government to act now, in strength and justice. The Government must publicise and follow the science, so that all parts of society can make a planned and just transition.

It is essential to our survival as a civilisation, that we do everything we can to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.

We need to focus on redefining economic growth and reducing consumerism. An energy descent is still possible.

As with COVID-19, people will respond to clearly expressed policies required to meet climate targets. We need to step up, as we have made too little effort to date. As a developed nation, Aotearoa has the capacity and the means to do this, compared to other countries, many of which look to us for an example.

If we do not act decisively now, it will be much harder in the future. We are already seeing the disastrous consequences of inaction for the global poor, who have contributed minimally to global warming. Ecosystem collapse is already occurring, as temperatures increase and the forests and oceans edge towards becoming carbon sources, rather than sinks.

Above all, we have a responsibility to future generations; not only to humans, but to every other living species which cannot speak for itself. This is a moral and ethical commitment.

About Coal Action Network Aotearoa

Coal Action Network Aotearoa (CANA) is a group of climate justice campaigners committed to ending coal mining and use in Aotearoa New Zealand. Formed in 2007, we recognise the mining and burning of coal as the primary threat to Earth’s climate system. CANA promotes climate justice by advocating and acting for a just transition to an Aotearoa free of coal mining and use. We work with local communities threatened by new coal mines and coal projects, and with allies across the climate justice and environmental movements. We are a member of the New Zealand Climate Action Network. Our target date for coal mining and use in Aotearoa to end is 2027.

Successful campaigns we’ve been involved in include:

• Helping to end Solid Energy’s plans to mine and burn massive quantities of Southland lignite
• Getting Fonterra to commit to, and then bring forward, an end date for installing new coal boilers
• Bringing Fonterra’s use of coal to the attention of the country
• Encouraging the New Zealand Government to set up a Just Transition Unit to help resource communities depend on fossil fuel extraction to transition to low-carbon jobs
• Opposing the expansion of Bathurst Resources’ Coalgate mine in Canterbury – this mine is now being closed down
• As part of the Fossil Fuel State Sector coalition, getting the Government to commit to replacing coal boilers in schools with renewable alternatives.

We have been involved in legal action, direct action, and lobbying to achieve these goals. Our members and supporters are members of local communities with experience of the negative effects of coal mining and use, climate activists, and scientists. We work with communities around the motu, other activist groups, and central and local Government to achieve our aims.

In writing this submission, we acknowledge the work done by the Climate Change Commission to produce its draft advice in difficult conditions and under time pressure, and likewise, the work of many individuals, groups, and journalists in analysing the report and producing submission guides. CANA contributed to this cross-groups submission guide, and we want to acknowledge the work put in by all the groups that contributed to that document.

We also endorse the submission of OraTaiao, with its focus on the health and wellbeing co-benefits of climate action and the centrality of Te Tiriti.

CANA’S “BIG ISSUES”

 1.  Urgent and Effective Action to Reduce GHG Emissions is Required

 Whilst the Commission’s draft advice is a welcome change from decades of Government obfuscation and reluctance to address the existential threat of climate change, the Commission’s clear systemic bias towards Business as Usual (BAU) has blinded it to actions that need to be taken. The advice reads like “happy talk”, in that the Commission:

• supports the political and economic status quo, e.g. in the treatment of methane and electricity generation;
• irrationally assumes there will be enough time for incremental policies to solve super-wicked problems, and,
• despite decades of egregious failure, does not question whether our post-WW2 economic and political structures are up to the task. As per the previous link,

“…the responsibility for global warming is not the common property of humanity but lies overwhelmingly with the few wealthy countries, the United States above all others, that profited most from early industrialization.

 The corollary truism is that the poor countries that disproportionately suffer the impacts of climate change contributed next to nothing to the problem. We have since learned that what is true in global macrocosm applies at the societal level as well. The wealthy consume far more resources and emit far more carbon than the rest of us.

 According to a recent Oxfam report, the richest one percent produce twice as many emissions than the poorest half of the planet’s population, and the richest 5 percent were responsible for more than a third of all emissions growth between 1990 and 2015. Leveling this gross inequity is a question of survival.”

Furthermore, we are, frankly, astounded that the draft never mentions rapidly approaching biophysical hard deadlines such as the multiple “tipping points” (aka planetary boundaries) that our civilisation is transgressing.

These include the melting ice of West Antarctica and Greenland, forests becoming net carbon sources instead of sinks, and the warming Arctic permafrost and shallow seas that are emitting ever-increasing amounts of methane.

These trends, coupled with the latest CMIP6 climate modeling that show a higher climate sensitivity than previously thought, suggest that we do not have more than one or two decades before our emission budgets are overwhelmed by feedbacks in the Earth system and atmospheric and ocean temperatures spike uncontrollably. We know this has caused mass extinction events in the past, e.g. the PETM.

As stated in a recent scientific review, “Underestimating the Challenges of Avoiding a Ghastly Future” (emphasis added):

We report three major and confronting environmental issues that have received little attention and require urgent action.

 First, we review the evidence that future environmental conditions will be far more dangerous than currently believed. The scale of the threats to the biosphere and all its lifeforms—including humanity—is in fact so great that it is difficult to grasp for even well-informed experts.

 Second, we ask what political or economic system, or leadership, is prepared to handle the predicted disasters, or even capable of such action.

 Third, this dire situation places an extraordinary responsibility on scientists to speak out candidly and accurately when engaging with government, business, and the public. We especially draw attention to the lack of appreciation of the enormous challenges to creating a sustainable future. The added stresses to human health, wealth, and well-being will perversely diminish our political capacity to mitigate the erosion of ecosystem services on which society depends.

 The science underlying these issues is strong, but awareness is weak. Without fully appreciating and broadcasting the scale of the problems and the enormity of the solutions required, society will fail to achieve even modest sustainability goals.

 …most of the world’s economies are predicated on the political idea that meaningful counteraction now is too costly to be politically palatable. 

 The gravity of the situation requires fundamental changes to global capitalism, education, and equality, which include inter alia the abolition of perpetual economic growth, properly pricing externalities, a rapid exit from fossil-fuel use, strict regulation of markets and property acquisition, reigning in corporate lobbying, and the empowerment of women. These choices will necessarily entail difficult conversations about population growth and the necessity of dwindling but more equitable standards of living.

We repeat, this is not climate “alarmism”, but cold, hard fact. To have some hope of maintaining a reasonably habitable planet for ourselves and other living species, we need to take actual and urgent action, to bend the emissions curve. The CCC’s draft recommendations to the NZ Government, if implemented, would be a step forward from our very feeble response to climate change so far, but we do not consider them to be nearly strong enough. We have proposed a number of changes to the Commission’s advice to strengthen its policy recommendations. As the draft report says, to the extent that is possible, we need to address this problem in a way that is fair to people and protects their living conditions and livelihoods.

2.  End Coal Mining and Use in Aotearoa

In light of the above, Coal Action Network Aotearoa is calling for an end to coal mining and use in Aotearoa by 2027, including a ban on both coal imports and exports.

NB: In this, we can cite the support of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who recently said:

“Phasing out coal from the electricity sector is the single most important step to get in line with the 1.5 degree goal.”

Mr. Guterres underlined action in three areas to end what he called “the deadly addiction to coal.” 

He called for countries to cancel all coal projects in the pipeline, particularly the 37 members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) who are urged to do so by 2030. 

The UN chief also appealed for ending international financing for coal and providing greater support to developing countries transitioning to renewable energy. 

 “I also ask all multilateral and public banks — as well as investors in commercial banks or pension funds — to shift their investments now in the new economy of renewable energy”, he added.

Specifically, CANA Requests that the Commission:

• Advise the Government to immediately ban new and expanded coal mines, including but not limited to a ban on mining coal on conservation land
• Set an end date of 2025 for all coal mining in Aotearoa – including coal for export
• Set an end date of no later than 2027 for the import of coal into Aotearoa
• End the free allocation of ETS credits to coal and other fossil fuel users, starting with an immediate end to free allocation of credits to large industrial users of coal

It is vital that the transition from the use of coal is to renewables, not other fossil fuels, and in particular, that it is not to natural gas, given that fugitive emissions mean the extraction and use of natural gas are almost as bad for the climate as burning coal.

The transition must be urgent, but it must also be just. We discuss this later in our response.

In 2019, about 2.68 million tonnes of coal was mined in Aotearoa, leading to well over 5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere. Additionally, in 2020, 1.1 million tonnes of coal were imported into Aotearoa.

In 2021 it is, frankly, a disgrace that a country with the wealth of renewable energy resources New Zealand possesses is still so dependent on coal. The good news is that alternatives are either available now, or rapidly becoming available. The rise of large-scale electricity storage means we don’t need to keep relying on coal or gas to back up renewable energy generation.

Coal boilers are being phased out at all levels: in 2019, Fonterra made a commitment to build no new coal boilers, while the Government has committed to a carbon-neutral public sector by 2025 and is rapidly moving to get coal out of school and hospitals.

But public-sector coal use represents a small fraction of New Zealand’s emissions from burning coal. It’s time to go much wider, and the climate emergency demands that we act much more urgently to phase out coal than the Commission projects. Many overseas jurisdictions have either ended the use of coal or announced target dates to do so within the next few years. New Zealand should not be dragging the chain.

The Commission has said that the use of coal needs to end (Advice report, p.15) – yet also projected coal use continuing at above 10 PJ/yr right up to 2050 (Advice report, Figure 5.4, p. 91). It’s time for the Commission to end the ambiguity and recommend to Government a firm phase-out date for coal.

3.  Low Hanging Fruit – Process Heat in the Dairy Industry

We will focus our submission here on Fonterra, as the country’s biggest user of coal for process heat.

Fonterra has stated that it will not build any new coal boilers, bringing that date forward from 2030. This may seem like progress, but our understanding is that political and other constraints mean that NZ has reached “peak cow” and Fonterra has, in fact, no need to build any more boilers.

Fonterra recently stated that it will reduce emissions by 30% by 2030, and the Climate Commission draft states that Fonterra should be allowed to continue to use coal for process heat until 2037. As noted above, CANA’s target date for coal mining and use in Aotearoa to end is 2027. Continued use of coal for process heat until 2037, by Fonterra or any other company or industry, is unacceptable.

The Commission’s Process Heat evidence (Chapter 4a: Reducing emissions – opportunities and challenges across sectors Heat, Industry and Power) states:

At current carbon prices, the operating costs of low emissions fuels are generally considered more expensive than fossil fuels.

The Commission should recommend a carbon price high enough to reverse this absurd – and unhealthy – price gap.

The Commission also refers to “current business models” that limit a company’s ability to convert to other forms of energy such as biomass.

The Commission rightfully states that New Zealand doesn’t have a huge amount of expertise in large biomass plants, and availability.  This is indeed true.  The downside of this is that a few so-called “experts” who have little international experience, nor willingness to understand, for example, the experience in Europe, are advising companies like Fonterra that there is no availability of biomass for new boilers.

We need to draw on overseas expertise. Europe is far ahead of New Zealand in this issue and biomass plants, using all kinds of sources, are common there.

4.  Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanisms 

Another issue the Climate Change Commission omits to mention are Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanisms, and how that sits with our current Eligible Industrial Activities (EIA) allocations of NZU to big emitters, who argue they need a level playing field internationally, so shouldn’t have to pay a carbon price for their use of coal.

Over the nine years 2010-2019, for example, Fonterra was allocated 333,489 free units. It wasn’t our biggest recipient, by any means, but is an example of how this country does not provide any disincentives for coal users, and is therefore propping up a dirty industry.

While the recipients of these free allocations have previously relied on the argument that they would be at a competitive disadvantage internationally if they had to pay for their emissions, the situation is rapidly changing. The European Union is actively considering imposing Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanisms (e.g carbon taxes or tariffs) on any goods entering the region that haven’t had to pay for their emissions at source.  China is also putting Emissions Trading Schemes in place in some regions, and is likely to take these nationwide in the near future.  The US, UK and the G7 are likely to follow suit.

Thus, while the Zero Carbon Act does reduce EIA allocations gradually through to 2050, exporters such as Fonterra are likely find themselves facing growing border costs.

This is another reason to remove these allocations sooner rather than later, so that exporters such as Fonterra are forced to switch from coal.

In our view, free allocations of credits to large industrial users of coal and other fossil fuels should cease immediately.

5.  Fossil Free State Sector

The Government’s announcement, as part of its Climate Emergency declaration, that it was committed to becoming a carbon-neutral Government by 2025 was welcome. However, while some sectors (such as education) are now making progress in actual emissions reductions by removing coal boilers from schools, there are still many Government departments and agencies that have not yet focused on what they will need to do to reduce their emissions.

As a result, there is a considerable risk that offsetting, rather than actual emissions reductions will be the main method used to meet this target.

Therefore, CANA wants the Commission to advise the Government that it should place a high priority on reducing actual emissions to zero from the state and public sector by 2025.

6. The Cost of Climate Change

The CCC’s estimates of the costs of action (GDP) vs BAU show that acting on climate change will cost little more than BAU GDP projections. Due to the fact that there are no complete studies of the costs of climate change impacts to the country, the CCC simply left out the whole subject.

This is, in our view, raises a major communications issue. For years, consecutive governments have successfully argued that acting on climate change would cost too much, especially the Key government. In 2015, then Climate Change Minister, Tim Groser, argued the cost of meeting our target would cost New Zealanders $30 billion. He claimed that a stronger target would cost the country too much, but the opposite is true, as the following articles attest:

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/drowning-dreams-billions-at-stake-as-govt-mulls-sea-level-rules

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/aucklands-500m-roading-problem

Treasury 2018 estimate of the rising cost of climate change is also sobering:

https://www.treasury.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2018-08/LSF-estimating-financial-cost-of-climate-change-in-nz.pdf

..we estimate that flood and drought costs attributable to anthropogenic influence on climate are currently somewhere in the vicinity of $120M per decade for insured damages from floods, and $720M for economic losses associated with droughts.

Because no NZ-based peer-reviewed papers yet exist investigating the FAR associated with storm damage, hailstorms, wildfire, frosts or tornadoes, we have left these out from the analysis. Our neglect of such events means we ignore at least NZ$279M in weather-related losses between July 2007 and June 2017. As an indicative comparison, if the FARs associated with these events were similar to those in the table – around 0.3 – then the extra attributable losses would add another $84M.

Our first estimate is that climate change attributable extreme rainfall-related floods have cost New Zealand around $120M in climate change attributable privately insured damages over that ten year period. Our second estimate is that climate change-attributable economic losses associated with droughts have cost New Zealand around $720M over that ten year period. These estimates are necessarily approximate and incomplete. Nevertheless, they provide ball-park estimates of current climate change-attributable costs, and the methodology could be extended to examine a wider range of hydrometeorological and other impacts, potentially forming one important element of a future more comprehensive understanding of climate risks in New Zealand.

 In the Evidence chapter 12.2.1, the Commission’s draft states:

Under current policy settings, GDP is projected to grow to $512 billion by 2050. This is likely to be an overestimate as this does not factor in the negative climate and trade impacts of not acting on climate change.

It further states:

Any analysis of the impact on GDP only provides a narrow picture of the impacts of reducing emissions. It does not reveal the indirect costs and benefits, nor who the costs and benefits fall on. The cost of not acting on climate change and the co-benefits of actions to reduce emissions, such as to health, the environment and productivity from increased innovation, are significant and provide even more reason for a country to act on climate change.

The rising costs of climate impacts

While we accept there is no New Zealand-wide study on the subject, some preliminary work has already been undertaken. However, the two statements above are buried in Chapter 12 of the Evidence report, and not well communicated to the wider population.

Frame et al, 2018, did address this issue. They looked at the costs of floods and droughts over the course of a ten-year period, finding:

…we estimate that flood and drought costs attributable to anthropogenic influence on climate are currently somewhere in the vicinity of $120M per decade for insured damages from floods, and $720M for economic losses associated with droughts.

Because no NZ-based peer-reviewed papers yet exist investigating the FAR associated with storm damage, hailstorms, wildfire, frosts or tornadoes, we have left these out from the analysis. 

Our neglect of such events means we ignore at least NZ$279M in weather-related losses between July 2007 and June 2017. As an indicative comparison, if the FARs associated with these events were similar to those in the table – around 0.3 – then the extra attributable losses would add another $84M.

Nevertheless, they provide ball-park estimates of current climate change-attributable costs, and the methodology could be extended to examine a wider range of hydrometeorological and other impacts, potentially forming one important element of a future more comprehensive understanding of climate risks in New Zealand.

Moreover, New Zealand has more than $20 billion worth of assets vulnerable to sea-level rise, another factor ignored by the Climate Change Commission in this draft.

While we accept there is no currently agree method of modeling these costs, that should not be a reason for the CCC to just go with a projected BAU GDP, and thus conveying the same kind of misleading communications to the New Zealand public in this report that we have seen over the past 30 years.

In summary: This flawed strategy has focussed attention on the cost of action, conveniently leaving out the very important issue of the costs of inaction, thus skewing the debate.

While Chapter 12 of the expert evidence does include two small paragraphs, this is wholly inadequate to the importance of the issue. It should have been front and centre in the Advice Report.  There is no mention at all of such costs, even generally, in the Executive Summary of the CCC’s advice to the government, therefore the country and our media will all be focussing on the costs of transition to a low-carbon economy.  What are the benefits of avoiding dangerous climate change?  What are the costs of continuing the way we’re going, and the impacts of a >3C world? These are indeed big issues, but to avoid discussing this aspect altogether is both disingenuous and dangerous.

The NZ Insurance Council’s data on the costs of extreme weather events bring this into focus. Last year the Napier floods alone cost $73m. The Ohau fire cost $35m.  How many coastal properties or properties on floodplains are going to lose their ability to get insurance?

By omitting this discussion altogether from its advice and the public conversation, the Climate Change Commission is not providing the New Zealand public with reasons to take action. Instead, we are left with conversations about the Government preparing to take away someone’s gas barbecue, never mind the fact that the home containing that barbecue may well be destroyed by the warming of 3-4C that currently awaits us!7.  Emission Budgets

Re the CCC draft advice Big Issues Question 1, Do you agree that the emissions budgets we have proposed would put Aotearoa on course to meet the 2050 emissions targets?

Coal Action Network Aotearoa strongly disagrees. The emissions budgets are not ambitious nor set to be achieved quickly enough. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 1.5-degree report outlines that for a 66% chance of averting climate catastrophe, we must begin emissions reductions with deep cuts, starting immediately. The Commission’s proposed approach is clearly not ambitious enough and risks passing many tipping points, which would put us on a hothouse earth trajectory.

The proposed emissions budgets must take into account the commitment to global equity and New Zealand’s obligations as a developed nation that are noted in the NDC section of the report. The legislation describes the purpose of emissions budgets to be for meeting the 2050 target AND New Zealand contributing to global efforts for 1.5 degrees (section 5W).

There are various policy areas where greater action can be taken in the next decade to enhance the first two budgets for greater consistency with IPCC’s 2030 pathways for 1.5 degrees while also meeting the 2050 target.

Re Big Issues Question 5, What are the most urgent policy interventions needed to help meet our emissions budgets? (Select all that apply)

Action to address barriers – Pricing to influence investments and choices – Investment to spur innovation and system transformation – None of them

All of these are urgent, and, to quit coal, all of the first three are required.

Coal and other fossil fuels can be burnt far too cheaply. The low price range in the ETS and, even worse, the massive allocation of free credits to major polluters – which renders the ETS unjust and ineffective, and gives vested interests an unearned financial advantage over renewable energy industries – render it an almost completely ineffective tool for influencing investments and choices.

CANA requests the Commission recommend to Government that:

• The floor price for ETS credits be sharply increased, and
• The allocation of free credits be ended immediately

High-temperature processes that use coal are a crucial area where investment to spur innovation and system transformation are needed. The Advice report, Fig 5.4, p. 91, projects that coal use will continue at above 10 PJ/year right up to – and possible beyond – 2050. From discussions with Commission staff, we understand that this demand is for steel and cement production.

If steel and cement production is to continue in Aotearoa, both must transition rapidly away from coal consumption.

NB: Research & development in carbon-free steel is already accelerating overseas, notably in Europe and Australia, and New Zealand Steel should be put on notice that a similar transition is urgently needed here.

Re Big Issues Question 6, Do you think our proposed emissions budgets and path to 2035 are both ambitious and achievable considering the potential for future behaviour and technology changes in the next 15 years?

Strongly disagree

In our view, the Commission’s recommendations lack ambition.

Given that we were all led to understand, by Climate Change Minister James Shaw, that the Climate Change Commission would provide advice on a 1.5C compatible 2030 target, we are puzzled as to why the CCC did not provide such a recommendation, only stating it should be “much more than 35%”.  This is another communications failure.

By only stating “much more than” and not giving any number above 35%, it is logical that the public understanding (and indeed we have already heard this from the media) is that the target should be 35%, not the “much more than” as set out in the recommendations by the CCC.  Moreover, the emissions budgets don’t even meet our weak 2030 target.

This is a failure of monumental proportions, exacerbated by the aforementioned failure to communicate to the public – and to Government – the cost of inaction, the cost to Aotearoa of a >3C world.  

Leaving aside the obfuscatory and unacceptable gross:net accounting of our plantation forest sinks (and its new “averaging” iteration), New Zealand’s emissions in 2030 will be around 67 MtCO2eq/year (excluding LULUCF). To be compatible with the Paris Agreement, those emissions should be at 41 MtCO2eq/year: a 50% reduction by 2030 levels excluding LULUCF.

NB: This is just for our domestic emissions pathway: taking into account our privileged position in the developed world, and “fair share” equity contribution to global emissions reductions, this should be even less.  (Here we agree wholeheartedly with the submission by Lawyers for Climate Action).

The problem is, the emissions budgets provided by the CCC are based on what the industry has said it can do, not on what must be done. The CCC has failed to do its job. Its budgets do not even meet the 2030 target.

To truly meet the scale of the climate emergency, and to play our part in giving the world a chance to stave off the worst effects of climate change, we need to carry out the bulk of the needed emissions reductions by 2030. Although not easy, decarbonising heat, industry, and power is comparatively straightforward compared to the challenges faced in decarbonising sectors such as transport and agriculture.

Therefore, we need to press ahead quickly, end the use of coal in this sector by 2027, and ensure a transition to renewable energy use.

8.  Te Tiriti

Re Detailed Question 7, Do you support enabling recommendation 3 on creating a genuine, active and enduring partnership with iwi/Māori? Is there anything we should change and why?

We agree that this partnership is critical, but the Commission’s focus on “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” rather than the wording of Te Tiriti risks weakening this focus and imperilling this partnership.

The Commission should undertake a thorough Te Tiriti analysis of its proposals and include recommendations on how Crown policy can give effect to Te Tiriti in achieving emissions targets.

Without prejudicing the outcome of such an analysis, we envisage this could include a national-level partnership mechanism with Māori as well as measures to enable iwi, hapū, and whānau to exercise their rangatiratanga and kaitiaki role in respect of taonga within their rohe.

9.  Overall Path

Re Detailed Question 12, Do you support the overall path that we have proposed to meet the first three budgets? Is there anything we should change and why?

CANA do not support this pathway, because it is insufficiently ambitious, particularly with respect to methane. We call for the Commission to recommend large cuts to methane and nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture, through destocking and by imposing limits on the import of synthetic nitrogen fertiliser and PKE.

The IPCC report estimates that 30 – 40% of current global warming comes from humanity’s methane emissions, as shown below:

Furthermore,

“Controlling methane emissions is an effective way to slow global warming. Because methane is very effective at trapping heat and has a relatively short lifetime of about a decade before it oxidizes to carbon dioxide, controlling its emissions is an effective way of reducing the heat trapped in the atmosphere now. It thus is very influential in determining how rapidly the planet warms.”

To our dismay, the draft submission barely mentions this fact, preferring strained and specious arguments centred on the short lifetime of methane in the atmosphere (10-20 years). Unfortunately for all of us, the Global Warming Potential of methane over 20 years is about 85 times that of carbon dioxide, and that heat remains in the atmosphere and ocean long after the methane molecules have decomposed into carbon dioxide and water.

The full impact, going forward, of this uncomfortable truth is left to the last page of the Commission’s draft advice, where we find the following graph:

To reiterate, whilst a particular molecule of CH4 decomposes relatively quickly to CO2 and H2O, most of the heat it has trapped in the atmosphere is absorbed by the oceans, causing the sea level to rise (SLR).

Ocean warming causes SLR through both ocean thermal expansion and the melting of the underside of floating ice shelves in the polar regions, which then destabilizes adjacent land-based ice sheets.

To our surprise, the Commission’s draft advice seems oblivious of these critical processes, despite much of the research having been carried out by their own colleagues!

The historical impact of methane-induced warming is shown in the graph on p.76 of the Commission’s draft advice, where we can easily see that the cumulative warming caused by methane is more than that of the next two gases combined.

10.  A Just Transition  

Re Consultation Question 13, Do you support the package of recommendations and actions we have proposed to increase the likelihood of an equitable, inclusive and well-planned climate transition? Is there anything we should change, and why?

We are pleased to see that the Commission acknowledges the need for an equitable transition to a low-carbon economy. CANA has been a leader in this field, specifically in terms of the need for a just transition to low-carbon jobs for New Zealand coal miners and coal mining communities.

Our 2015 report Jobs After Coal: A Just Transition for New Zealand Communities helped contribute to the Labour Party’s Future of Work project and has contributed to the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions’ thinking on just transitions – see for example NZCTU, Just Transition – A Working People’s Response to Climate Change (2017), p. 16.

Jobs After Coal argues that:

• the role of coal in New Zealand’s economy is small
• there are many options for jobs in the industries that will replace coal
• skills of coal miners are transferable to other industries, and
• communities can reinvent themselves to regain a new prosperity after coal.

These positive outcomes depend on recognising the need for a proper and effective transition path and setting up a planned process within the community itself, including all stakeholders, with support from central and local government. One of the recommendations in Jobs After Coal was that the Government set up a unit within MBIE to help manage the transition to low-carbon jobs. This Just Transitions Unit has now been set up, but has focused on oil and gas so far – CANA wants  the Commission to recommend to Government that MBIE widen its focus to coal-mining communities and regions.

CANA views trade unions as important partners in the just transition process, together with iwi, local authorities and business in affected areas. The words “trade union”, however, do not appear at all in the Commission’s advice. Therefore, we want the Commission to acknowledge the central role that New Zealand trade unions and workers will play in the transition from fossil fuels.

11.  Electricity generation

 Distributed electricity generation is viewed positively in the Evidence section of the draft:

Distributed generation refers to a variety of technologies that generate electricity at or near where it will be used, such as solar panels. About 95% of distributed generation is from renewable sources such as wind, geothermal and hydro, and ‘behind the meter’ generation such as rooftop solar.

 These forms of decentralised generation play a role in reducing the amount of electricity that would otherwise have to be transmitted by the grid. This is particularly valuable when it can offset periods of peak demand, and potentially emissions and high electricity prices, and when the grid is limited in some way (for example if a line fails during a storm). The amount of distributed generation in the system is expected to increase as the cost of solar PV and wind generation decreases and more households and communities look for energy sovereignty.

 Community involvement in distributed generation may have social benefits, such as enhanced cohesion, acceptance of development (when there is control over where the generation is located) and self-sufficiency through self-supply. It can also adapt and affect consumer behaviour and energy use.

 For example, iwi/Māori through local marae schemes and rural communities may actively transition to distributed generation for a variety of reasons, including ownership, cost and resilience (particularly if they are in remote areas) and a desire to reduce their emissions.

 In Aotearoa, it can be challenging for owners or would-be investors in distributed generation to access the electricity market. Owners of distributed generation can either sell any generation not used on site to a retailer through a contract or sell it into the market and ‘take’ the wholesale price. It can be difficult to secure the long-term contracts. A liquid hedge market would be important in facilitating this. 

 Given this, it is surprising that the Advice section makes no mention of household rooftop solar, which is subsidised as a public good in other many countries.

Instead, the draft advice prefers wind power, as seen in the graphs on p. 62, and, in the absence of government support, any growth in solar generation seems likely to come from corporate solar farms, rather than small household and community installations. This is clearly anti-competitive.

Commenting on a recent article on renewable power generation in NZ, respected economics professor Geoff Bertram has the following to say about the institutional impediments to such smaller initiatives (emphasis added):

“Tweaking the market settings” won’t really cut it. Clearing the way for distributed solar to get quickly underway requires breaking the united opposition of the big generators and their wholly-owned subsidiary the Electricity Authority, who are still pressing ahead to get increased fixed charges imposed on household consumers as a means of making rooftop solar uneconomic (the very low buy-back rates in the absence of a regulated feed-in tariff were just a first step towards squeezing out small distributed competition to the big guys)…

Basically, we have an industry structure designed and built to entrench and perpetuate monopolistic behaviour, and that broken market is the biggest roadblock to electrifying the economy . A climate change emergency is a recipe for the generator cartel to hold us all to ransom.

 Energy analyst Molly Melhuish expresses a similar view:

MBIE’s scenarios support Government’s fast-track plan for removing the Low Fixed Charge regime… The corporates want every residential consumer to pay around $2/day on their power bill. This is like an electricity tax to fund their growing electricity empire. Their intent is to reduce the per-kilowatt-hour charge from 33c/kWh to 23c/kWh, which will clearly make consumer investment in rooftop solar panels much less economic.

Yet rooftop panels add resilience to our energy supply – a benefit that is ignored in MBIE’s supply-side analyses. Small-scale energy projects, household retrofits and community energy projects all employ people at all levels of skill and experience.

Utility-scale solar competes with rooftop solar, so removing the low fixed charge regime, driving unit prices down from 33c/kWh to 23c/kWh, will be a nail in the coffin of the independent solar installers.

CANA calls for strong Government support for small-scale distributed generation, including photovoltaic (PV) panels & batteries for rooftop solar, if necessary by restructuring the electricity generation industry to reduce the power of the cartel of major players.

Furthermore, we believe the building codes should be revised, to make all new buildings zero-emission, with mandatory solar panels and water tanks.

12.  Green Hydrogen

Whilst CANA supports the Commission’s advice to research the potential role of hydrogen fuel produced from the electrolysis of water by renewable electricity, we oppose the use of hydrogen anywhere that electricity could be used directly.

This is because the process of electrolysing water to hydrogen gas, then compressing, cooling, storing, transporting, and using it is grossly inefficient when compared to simply using the electricity directly.

For example, in passenger vehicles, electricity is more than three times as efficient as hydrogen, and almost six times as efficient as such “electrofuels” as methanol.

NB: New Zealand has been down this wasteful road already, with the “Think Big” projects of the ’80s, particularly the gas -> methanol -> synthetic petrol boondoggle that was apparently designed to use and/or waste as much gas as possible within the thirty-year “Take or Pay” contract for the Maui gas field.

Indeed, the same multinational oil and gas companies that benefitted from that scheme, would also be in line for huge contracts to build the infrastructure for a hydrogen economy, which may provide some explanation as to why the idea of exporting hydrogen to other countries is gaining traction.

CANA wants to see our renewable energy resources used to add value within New Zealand, rather than exported as yet more “frozen goods” in the form of liquid hydrogen or, indeed, as aluminium ingots.

In conclusion, we welcome Rio Tinto’s promised departure, and look forward to their replacement by exciting new sustainable industries in Southland.

CODA

Nau te rourou, naku te rourou, ka ora te iwi – From my food basket and your food basket, there is sufficient for everyone.

The post CLIMATE ACTION FOR AOTEAROA – CANA SUBMISSION TO THE CLIMATE CHANGE COMMISSION, MARCH 2021 appeared first on Coal Action Network Aotearoa.

“Governments around the world are announcing phase-out dates for coal. It’s time New Zealand stopped dragging the chain…”

The post It’s coal’s turn on the ash heap of history appeared first on Coal Action Network Aotearoa.